A structured process for the validation of a decision-analytic model: application to a cost-effectiveness model for risk-stratified national breast screening.

BACKGROUND: Decision-makers require knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of decision-analytic models used to evaluate healthcare interventions to be able to confidently use the results of such models to inform policy. A number of aspects of model validity have previously been described, but no systematic approach to assessing the validity of a model has been proposed. This study aimed to consolidate the different aspects of model validity into a step-by-step approach to assessing the strengths and weaknesses of a decision-analytic model. METHODS: A pre-defined set of steps were used to conduct the validation process of an exemplar early decision-analytic-model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of a risk-stratified national breast cancer screening programme [UK healthcare perspective; lifetime horizon; costs (£; 2021)]. Internal validation was assessed in terms of descriptive validity, technical validity and face validity. External validation was assessed in terms of operational validation, convergent validity (or corroboration) and predictive validity. RESULTS: The results outline the findings of each step of internal and external validation of the early decision-analytic-model and present the validated model (called 'MANC-RISK-SCREEN'). The positive aspects in terms of meeting internal validation requirements are shown together with the remaining limitations of MANC-RISK-SCREEN. CONCLUSION: Following a transparent and structured validation process, MANC-RISK-SCREEN has been shown to have satisfactory internal and external validity for use in informing resource allocation decision-making. We suggest that MANC-RISK-SCREEN can be used to assess the cost-effectiveness of exemplars of risk-stratified national breast cancer screening programmes (NBSP) from the UK perspective. IMPLICATIONS: A step-by-step process for conducting the validation of a decision-analytic model was developed for future use by health economists. Using this approach may help researchers to fully demonstrate the strengths and limitations of their model to decision-makers.

The implications of competing risks and direct treatment disutility in cardiovascular disease and osteoporotic fracture: risk prediction and cost effectiveness analysis.

Background: Clinical guidelines commonly recommend preventative treatments for people above a risk threshold. Therefore, decision-makers must have faith in risk prediction tools and model-based cost-effectiveness analyses for people at different levels of risk. Two problems that arise are inadequate handling of competing risks of death and failing to account for direct treatment disutility (i.e. the hassle of taking treatments). We explored these issues using two case studies: primary prevention of cardiovascular disease using statins and osteoporotic fracture using bisphosphonates. Objectives: Externally validate three risk prediction tools [QRISK®3, QRISK®-Lifetime, QFracture-2012 (ClinRisk Ltd, Leeds, UK)]; derive and internally validate new risk prediction tools for cardiovascular disease [competing mortality risk model with Charlson Comorbidity Index (CRISK-CCI)] and fracture (CFracture), accounting for competing-cause death; quantify direct treatment disutility for statins and bisphosphonates; and examine the effect of competing risks and direct treatment disutility on the cost-effectiveness of preventative treatments. Design, participants, main outcome measures, data sources: Discrimination and calibration of risk prediction models (Clinical Practice Research Datalink participants: aged 25-84 years for cardiovascular disease and aged 30-99 years for fractures); direct treatment disutility was elicited in online stated-preference surveys (people with/people without experience of statins/bisphosphonates); costs and quality-adjusted life-years were determined from decision-analytic modelling (updated models used in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making). Results: CRISK-CCI has excellent discrimination, similar to that of QRISK3 (Harrell's c = 0.864 vs. 0.865, respectively, for women; and 0.819 vs. 0.834, respectively, for men). CRISK-CCI has systematically better calibration, although both models overpredict in high-risk subgroups. People recommended for treatment (10-year risk of ≥ 10%) are younger when using QRISK-Lifetime than when using QRISK3, and have fewer observed events in a 10-year follow-up (4.0% vs. 11.9%, respectively, for women; and 4.3% vs. 10.8%, respectively, for men). QFracture-2012 underpredicts fractures, owing to under-ascertainment of events in its derivation. However, there is major overprediction among people aged 85-99 years and/or with multiple long-term conditions. CFracture is better calibrated, although it also overpredicts among older people. In a time trade-off exercise (n = 879), statins exhibited direct treatment disutility of 0.034; for bisphosphonates, it was greater, at 0.067. Inconvenience also influenced preferences in best-worst scaling (n = 631). Updated cost-effectiveness analysis generates more quality-adjusted life-years among people with below-average cardiovascular risk and fewer among people with above-average risk. If people experience disutility when taking statins, the cardiovascular risk threshold at which benefits outweigh harms rises with age (≥ 8% 10-year risk at 40 years of age; ≥ 38% 10-year risk at 80 years of age). Assuming that everyone experiences population-average direct treatment disutility with oral bisphosphonates, treatment is net harmful at all levels of risk. Limitations: Treating data as missing at random is a strong assumption in risk prediction model derivation. Disentangling the effect of statins from secular trends in cardiovascular disease in the previous two decades is challenging. Validating lifetime risk prediction is impossible without using very historical data. Respondents to our stated-preference survey may not be representative of the population. There is no consensus on which direct treatment disutilities should be used for cost-effectiveness analyses. Not all the inputs to the cost-effectiveness models could be updated. Conclusions: Ignoring competing mortality in risk prediction overestimates the risk of cardiovascular events and fracture, especially among older people and those with multimorbidity. Adjustment for competing risk does not meaningfully alter cost-effectiveness of these preventative interventions, but direct treatment disutility is measurable and has the potential to alter the balance of benefits and harms. We argue that this is best addressed in individual-level shared decision-making. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021249959. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/12/22) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 4. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Before offering a medicine to prevent disease, prescribers must expect it to do more good than harm. This balance depends on how likely it is that the person will develop the disease we want to prevent. But people might first die for other reasons. We call this a 'competing risk'. In most cases, the mathematical tools we use to estimate the chance of developing a disease do not account for competing risks. Another problem is that, when weighing up the benefits and harms of medicines, we ignore the hassle they cause patients, even when they do not cause side effects. We used two examples: statins to prevent heart disease and bisphosphonates to prevent fractures. First, we assessed if existing tools get predictions wrong by not accounting for competing risks. We found that they exaggerate the chance of heart attacks and strokes. However, the exaggeration is greatest among people who would clearly benefit from preventative treatment. So it may not change treatment decisions much. The fracture prediction tool we studied was very inaccurate, exaggerating risk among older people, but underestimating risk among younger people. We made a new fracture risk prediction tool. It gave better predictions, but it was still inaccurate for people aged > 85 years and those with several health problems. Next, we asked people questions designed to put a number on the hassle that statins and bisphosphonates cause. Most people thought that taking either is inconvenient, but the hassle factor for bisphosphonates is bigger. Finally, we updated the mathematical models that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence used when recommending statins and bisphosphonates. We worked out if competing risks and the hassle of taking medicines make a difference to results. Statins remain a good idea for almost everyone, unless they really hate the idea of taking them. But bisphosphonates would do more harm than good for anyone who agrees with the hassle factor we found.

International Systematic Review of Utility Values Associated with Cardiovascular Disease and Reflections on Selecting Evidence for a UK Decision-Analytic Model.

PURPOSE: Evaluating interventions for cardiovascular disease (CVD) requires estimates of its effect on utility. We aimed to 1) systematically review utility estimates for CVDs published since 2013 and 2) critically appraise UK-relevant estimates and calculate corresponding baseline utility multipliers. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase (April 22, 2021) using CVD and utility terms. We screened results for primary studies reporting utility distributions for people with experience of heart failure, myocardial infarction, peripheral arterial disease, stable angina, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or unstable angina. We extracted characteristics from studies included. For UK estimates based on the EuroQoL 5-dimension (EQ-5D) measure, we assessed risk of bias and applicability to a decision-analytic model, pooled arms/time points as appropriate, and estimated baseline utility multipliers using predicted utility for age- and sex- matched populations without CVD. We sought utility sources from directly applicable studies with low risk of bias, prioritizing plausibility of severity ordering in our base-case model and highest population ascertainment in a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Most of the 403 studies identified used EQ-5D (n = 217) and most assessed Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development populations (n = 262), although measures and countries varied widely. UK studies using EQ-5D (n = 29) produced very heterogeneous baseline utility multipliers for each type of CVD, precluding meta-analysis and implying different possible severity orderings. We could find sources that provided a plausible ordering of utilities while adequately representing health states. CONCLUSIONS: We cataloged international CVD utility estimates and calculated UK-relevant baseline utility multipliers. Modelers should consider unreported sources of heterogeneity, such as population differences, when selecting utility evidence from reviews. HIGHLIGHTS: Published systematic reviews have summarized estimates of utility associated with cardiovascular disease published up to 2013.We 1) reviewed utility estimates for 7 types of cardiovascular disease published since 2013, 2) critically appraised UK-relevant studies, and 3) estimated the effect of each cardiovascular disease on baseline utility.Our review 1) recommends a consistent and reliable set of baseline utility multipliers for 7 types of cardiovascular disease and 2) provides systematically identified reference information for researchers seeking utility evidence for their own context.

Development of a point-of-care genetic test for effective treatment of ischaemic stroke: an early model-based cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background: People who have experienced a stroke are at high risk of recurrent strokes. Clopidogrel is prescribed to people who have had a non-cardioembolic stroke. There is evidence that clopidogrel is not effective for patients with CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles. Pharmacogenetic testing is a potential strategy to identify such patients and guide prescription of appropriate antiplatelet treatment. This study aimed to provide an early estimate of the cost-effectiveness of using a point-of-care pharmacogenetic CYP2C19 test in the UK National Health System. Methods: A decision-analytic model comprising a linked decision tree and Markov model were created in R comparing pharmacogenetic testing with current prescribing practice. In the pharmacogenetic testing arm, patients identified to have one of three loss-of-function alleles were prescribed modified-release dipyridamole and aspirin or aspirin alone. Indicative data were sourced from reviews of the literature supported by expert consultation to select the most appropriate value for the input parameters. The healthcare costs (£;2021) and quality adjusted life years resulting from each strategy were estimated and the incremental cost-effectiveness of testing calculated. Deterministic threshold analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted to account for uncertainty in the parameter estimates. Results: The pharmacogenetic testing strategy generated 0.107 additional QALYs per patient tested and saved £512. Pharmacogenetic testing dominated current prescribing practice. The results were robust to extreme changes in key input variables. The PSA suggested that there was a 77% chance that pharmacogenetic testing would be cost-effective with a 62% chance it is cost-saving. Conclusions: A point-of-care pharmacogenetic test to guide prescription of clopidogrel for people who have experienced a stroke has the potential to provide a significant health gain by preventing secondary strokes and may save resources in the health system. This early economic analysis has also informed the direction for future research.

Estimating the Cost of 3 Risk Prediction Strategies for Potential Use in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Program.

Background: Economic evaluations have suggested that risk-stratified breast cancer screening may be cost-effective but have used assumptions to estimate the cost of risk prediction. The aim of this study was to identify and quantify the resource use and associated costs required to introduce a breast cancer risk-stratification approach into the English national breast screening program. Methods: A micro-costing study, conducted alongside a cohort-based prospective trial (BC-PREDICT), identified the resource use and cost per individual (£; 2021 price year) of providing a risk-stratification strategy at a woman's first mammography. Costs were calculated for 3 risk-stratification approaches: Tyrer-Cuzick survey, Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement, and Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement and testing for 142 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP). Costs were determined for the intervention as implemented in the trial and in the health service. Results: The cost of providing the risk-stratification strategy was calculated to be £16.45 for the Tyrer-Cuzick survey approach, £21.82 for the Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement, and £102.22 for the Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement and SNP testing. Limitations: This study did not use formal expert elicitation methods to synthesize estimates. Conclusion: The costs of risk prediction using a survey and breast density measurement were low, but adding SNP testing substantially increases costs. Implementation issues present in the trial may also significantly increase the cost of risk prediction. Implications: This is the first study to robustly estimate the cost of risk-stratification for breast cancer screening. The cost of risk prediction using questionnaires and automated breast density measurement was low, but full economic evaluations including accurate costs are required to provide evidence of the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast cancer screening. Highlights: Economic evaluations have suggested that risk-stratified breast cancer screening may be a cost-effective use of resources in the United Kingdom.Current estimates of the cost of risk stratification are based on pragmatic assumptions.This study provides estimates of the cost of risk stratification using 3 strategies and when these strategies are implemented perfectly and imperfectly in the health system.The cost of risk stratification is relatively low unless single nucleotide polymorphisms are included in the strategy.

Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment in Medical Product Decision Making: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force.

Benefit-risk assessment is commonly conducted by drug and medical device developers and regulators, to evaluate and communicate issues around benefit-risk balance of medical products. Quantitative benefit-risk assessment (qBRA) is a set of techniques that incorporate explicit outcome weighting within a formal analysis to evaluate the benefit-risk balance. This report describes emerging good practices for the 5 main steps of developing qBRAs based on the multicriteria decision analysis process. First, research question formulation needs to identify the needs of decision makers and requirements for preference data and specify the role of external experts. Second, the formal analysis model should be developed by selecting benefit and safety endpoints while eliminating double counting and considering attribute value dependence. Third, preference elicitation method needs to be chosen, attributes framed appropriately within the elicitation instrument, and quality of the data should be evaluated. Fourth, analysis may need to normalize the preference weights, base-case and sensitivity analyses should be conducted, and the effect of preference heterogeneity analyzed. Finally, results should be communicated efficiently to decision makers and other stakeholders. In addition to detailed recommendations, we provide a checklist for reporting qBRAs developed through a Delphi process conducted with 34 experts.

Capturing the Impact of Constraints on the Cost-Effectiveness of Cell and Gene Therapies: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Decision-makers need to resolve constraints on delivering cell and gene therapies to patients as these treatments move into routine care. This study aimed to investigate if, and how, constraints that affect the expected cost and health consequences of cell and gene therapies have been included in published examples of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). METHOD: A systematic review identified CEAs of cell and gene therapies. Studies were identified from previous systematic reviews and by searching Medline and Embase until 21 January 2022. Constraints described qualitatively were categorised by theme and summarised by a narrative synthesis. Constraints evaluated in quantitative scenario analyses were appraised by whether they changed the decision to recommend treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-two CEAs of cell (n = 20) and gene therapies (n = 12) were included. Twenty-one studies described constraints qualitatively (70% cell therapy CEAs; 58% gene therapy CEAs). Qualitative constraints were categorised by four themes: single payment models; long-term affordability; delivery by providers; manufacturing capability. Thirteen studies assessed constraints quantitatively (60% cell therapy CEAs; 8% gene therapy CEAs). Two types of constraint were assessed quantitatively across four jurisdictions (USA, Canada, Singapore, The Netherlands): alternatives to single payment models (n = 9 scenario analyses); improving manufacturing (n = 12 scenario analyses). The impact on decision-making was determined by whether the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios crossed a relevant cost-effectiveness threshold for each jurisdiction (outcome-based payment models: n = 25 threshold comparisons made, 28% decisions changed; improving manufacturing: n = 24 threshold comparisons made, 4% decisions changed). CONCLUSION: The net health impact of constraints is vital evidence to help decision-makers scale up the delivery of cell and gene therapies as patient volume increases and more advanced therapy medicinal products are launched. CEAs will be essential to quantify how constraints affect the cost-effectiveness of care, prioritise constraints to be resolved, and establish the value of strategies to implement cell and gene therapies by accounting for their health opportunity cost.

Illustrating Emerging Good Practices for Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment: A Hypothetical Case Study of Systemic Biologic Treatments for Plaque Psoriasis.

OBJECTIVES: Quantitative benefit-risk assessment (qBRA) is a structured process to evaluate the benefit-risk balance of treatment options to support decision making. The ISPOR qBRA Task Force was recently established to provide recommendations for the design, conduct, and reporting of qBRA. This report presents a hypothetical case study illustrating how to apply the Task Force's recommendations toward a qBRA to inform the benefit-risk assessment of brodalumab at the time of initial marketing approval. The qBRA evaluated 2 dosing regimens of brodalumab (210 mg or 140 mg twice weekly) compared with weight-based dosing of ustekinumab and placebo. METHODS: We followed the 5 steps recommended by the Task Force. Attributes included treatment response (≥75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index), suicidal ideation and behavior, and infections. Performance data were drawn from pivotal clinical trials of brodalumab. The qBRA used multicriteria decision analysis and preference weights from a hypothetical discrete choice experiment. Sensitivity analyses examined the robustness of benefit-risk ranking to uncertainty in clinical effect and preference estimates, consideration of a subgroup (nail psoriasis), and the maintenance phase of treatment (52 weeks instead of 12). RESULTS: Results from this hypothetical qBRA suggest that brodalumab 210 mg had a more favorable benefit-risk profile compared with ustekinumab and placebo. Ranking of brodalumab compared with ustekinumab was dependent on brodalumab's dose. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated robustness of benefit-risk ranking to uncertainty in clinical effect and preference estimates, as well as choice of attributes and length of follow-up. CONCLUSION: This case study demonstrates how to implement the ISPOR Task Force's good practice recommendations on qBRA.

EULAR points to consider for therapeutic drug monitoring of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

OBJECTIVE: To develop EULAR points-to-consider for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: The points-to-consider were developed in accordance with EULAR standardised operation procedures by a multidisciplinary task force from eight European countries, based on a systematic literature review and expert consensus. Level of evidence and strength of the points-to-consider were determined, and mean levels of agreement among the task force were calculated using a 10-point rating scale. RESULTS: Six overarching principles and 13 points-to-consider were formulated. The level of agreement among the task force for the overarching principles and points-to-consider ranged from 8.4 to 9.9.The overarching principles define TDM and its subtypes, and reinforce the underlying pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic principles, which are relevant to all biopharmaceutical classes. The points-to-consider highlight the clinical utility of the measurement and interpretation of biopharmaceutical blood concentrations and antidrug antibodies in specific clinical scenarios, including factors that influence these parameters. In general, proactive use of TDM is not recommended but reactive TDM could be considered in certain clinical situations. An important factor limiting wider adoption of TDM is the lack of both high quality trials addressing effectiveness and safety of TDM and robust economic evaluation in patients with RMDs. Future research should focus on providing this evidence, as well as on further understanding of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of biopharmaceuticals. CONCLUSION: These points-to-consider are evidence-based and consensus-based statements for the use of TDM of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory RMDs, addressing the clinical utility of TDM.

Economics and Precision Medicine.

Introducing precision medicine strategies into routine practice will require robust economic evidence. Decision-makers need to understand the value of a precision medicine strategy compared with alternative ways to treat patients. This chapter describes health economic analysis techniques that are needed to generate this evidence. The value of any precision medicine strategy can be demonstrated early to inform evidence generation and improve the likelihood of translation into routine practice. Advances in health economic analysis techniques are also explained and their relevance to precision medicine is highlighted. Ensuring that constraints on delivery are resolved to increase uptake and implementation will improve the value of a new precision medicine strategy. Empirical methods to quantify stakeholders' preferences can be effective to inform the design of a precision medicine intervention or service delivery model. A range of techniques to generate relevant economic evidence are now available to support the development and translation of precision medicine into routine practice. This economic evidence is essential to inform resource allocation decisions and will enable patients to benefit from cost-effective precision medicine strategies in the future.

Valuing Health Gain from Composite Response Endpoints for Multisystem Diseases.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to demonstrate how to estimate the value of health gain after patients with a multisystem disease achieve a condition-specific composite response endpoint. METHODS: Data from patients treated in routine practice with an exemplar multisystem disease (systemic lupus erythematosus) were extracted from a national register (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group Biologics Register). Two bespoke composite response endpoints (Major Clinical Response and Improvement) were developed in advance of this study. Difference-in-differences regression compared health utility values (3-level version of EQ-5D; UK tariff) over 6 months for responders and nonresponders. Bootstrapped regression estimated the incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), probability of QALY gain after achieving the response criteria, and population monetary benefit of response. RESULTS: Within the sample (n = 171), 18.2% achieved Major Clinical Response and 49.1% achieved Improvement at 6 months. Incremental health utility values were 0.0923 for Major Clinical Response and 0.0454 for Improvement. Expected incremental QALY gain at 6 months was 0.020 for Major Clinical Response and 0.012 for Improvement. Probability of QALY gain after achieving the response criteria was 77.6% for Major Clinical Response and 72.7% for Improvement. Population monetary benefit of response was £1 106 458 for Major Clinical Response and £649 134 for Improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Bespoke composite response endpoints are becoming more common to measure treatment response for multisystem diseases in trials and observational studies. Health technology assessment agencies face a growing challenge to establish whether these endpoints correspond with improved health gain. Health utility values can generate this evidence to enhance the usefulness of composite response endpoints for health technology assessment, decision making, and economic evaluation.

Implementing Risk-Stratified Breast Screening in England: An Agenda Setting Meeting.

It is now possible to accurately assess breast cancer risk at routine NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) appointments, provide risk feedback and offer risk management strategies to women at higher risk. These strategies include National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) approved additional breast screening and risk-reducing medication. However, the NHSBSP invites nearly all women three-yearly, regardless of risk. In March 2022, a one-day agenda setting meeting took place in Manchester to discuss the feasibility and desirability of implementation of risk-stratified screening in the NHSBSP. Fifty-eight individuals participated (38 face-to-face, 20 virtual) with relevant expertise from academic, clinical and/or policy-making perspectives. Key findings were presented from the PROCAS2 NIHR programme grant regarding feasibility of risk-stratified screening in the NHSBSP. Participants discussed key uncertainties in seven groups, followed by a plenary session. Discussions were audio-recorded and thematically analysed to produce descriptive themes. Five themes were developed: (i) risk and health economic modelling; (ii) health inequalities and communication with women; (iii); extending screening intervals for low-risk women; (iv) integration with existing NHSBSP; and (v) potential new service models. Most attendees expected some form of risk-stratified breast screening to be implemented in England and collectively identified key issues to be resolved to facilitate this.

Understanding current UK practice for the incidental identification of vertebral fragility fractures from CT scans: an expert elicitation study.

BACKGROUND: There is an emerging interest in using automated approaches to enable the incidental identification of vertebral fragility fractures (VFFs) on existing medical images visualising the spine. AIM: To quantify values, and the degree of uncertainty associated with them, for the incidental identification of VFFs from computed tomography (CT) scans in current practice. METHODS: An expert elicitation exercise was conducted to generate point estimates and measures of uncertainty for four values representing the probability of: VFF being correctly reported by the radiologist; the absence of VFF being correctly assessed by the radiologist; being referred for management when a VFF is identified; having a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan after general practitioner (GP) referral. Data from a sample of seven experts in the diagnosis and management of people with VFFs were pooled using mathematical aggregation. RESULTS: The estimated mean values for each probability parameter were: VFF being correctly reported by the radiologist = 0.25 (standard deviation (SD): 0.21); absence of VFF being correctly assessed by the radiologist = 0.89 (0.10); being referred for management when a VFF is identified by the radiologist = 0.15 (0.12); having a DXA scan after GP referral = 0.66 (0.28). DISCUSSION: These estimates could be used to facilitate the subsequent early economic evaluation of potential new approaches to improve the health outcomes of people with VFFs. CONCLUSION: In the absence of epidemiological studies, this study produced point estimates and measures of uncertainty for key parameters needed to describe current pathways for the incidental diagnosis of VFFs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Algorithms for Familial Hypercholesterolaemia in Primary Care.

Although familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) screening within primary care is considered cost-effective, which screening approach is cost-effective has not been established. This study determines the cost-effectiveness of six case-finding strategies for screening of electronic health records to identify index patients who have genetically confirmed monogenic FH in English primary care. A decision tree was constructed to represent pathways of care for each approach (FH Case Identification Tool (FAMCAT) versions 1 and 2, cholesterol screening, Dutch Lipid Clinic Network (DLCN), Simon Broome criteria, no active screening). Clinical effectiveness was measured as the number of monogenic FH cases identified. Healthcare costs for each algorithm were evaluated from an NHS England perspective over a 12 week time horizon. The primary outcome was the incremental cost per additional monogenic FH case identified (ICER). FAMCAT2 was found to dominate (cheaper and more effective) cholesterol and FAMCAT1 algorithms, and extendedly dominate DLCN. The ICER for FAMCAT2 vs. no active screening was 8111 GBP (95% CI: 4088 to 14,865), and for Simon Broome vs. FAMCAT2 was 74,059 GBP (95% CI: -1,113,172 to 1,697,142). Simon Broome found the largest number of FH cases yet required 102 genetic tests to identify one FH patient. FAMCAT2 identified fewer, but only required 23 genetic tests.

Cost-effectiveness of a policy-based intervention to reduce melanoma and other skin cancers associated with indoor tanning.

BACKGROUND: The use of indoor tanning devices causes melanoma and other skin cancers with resulting morbidity, mortality and increased healthcare costs. Policymakers require robust economic evidence to inform decisions about a possible ban of such devices to mitigate these burdens. OBJECTIVES: To assess the health costs and consequences of introducing a policy-based intervention across England to ban commercial indoor tanning with an accompanying public information campaign. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis, adopting a healthcare system perspective, was conducted using a decision model to track a national cohort of 18-year-olds over a lifetime time horizon. A nationwide ban on commercial indoor tanning combined with a public information campaign (the policy-based intervention) was compared with the status quo of availability of commercial indoor tanning. The expected costs (currency, GBP; price year, 2019) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated. Net monetary benefit (NMB) (net benefit measured in cost compared with an accepted threshold) and net health benefit (NHB) (net gain in QALYs compared with an accepted threshold) of implementation were calculated. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to calculate the probability that the intervention was cost-effective. RESULTS: Compared with the current situation, a ban on commercial indoor tanning combined with a public information campaign would result in 1206 avoided cases of melanoma, 207 fewer melanoma deaths and 3987 averted cases of keratinocyte cancers over the lifetime of all 18-year-olds (n = 618 873) living in England in 2019. An additional 497 QALYs would be realized along with healthcare cost-savings of £697 858. This intervention would result in an NMB of £10.6m and an NHB of 530 QALYS. Multiple sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000, there is a 99% likelihood of this policy-based intervention being cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a ban on commercial indoor tanning across England with an accompanying public information campaign would be an effective use of healthcare resources.

Eliciting uncertainty for complex parameters in model-based economic evaluations: quantifying a temporal change in the treatment effect.

BACKGROUND: In model-based economic evaluations, the effectiveness parameter is often informed by studies with a limited duration of follow-up, requiring extrapolation of the treatment effect over a longer time horizon. Extrapolation from short-term data alone may not adequately capture uncertainty in that extrapolation. This study aimed to use structured expert elicitation to quantify uncertainty associated with extrapolation of the treatment effect observed in a clinical trial. METHODS: A structured expert elicitation exercise was conducted for an applied study of a podiatry intervention designed to reduce the rate of falls and fractures in the elderly. A bespoke web application was used to elicit experts' beliefs about two outcomes (rate of falls and odds of fracture) as probability distributions (priors), for two treatment options (intervention and treatment as usual) at multiple time points. These priors were used to derive the temporal change in the treatment effect of the intervention, to extrapolate outcomes observed in a trial. The results were compared with extrapolation without experts' priors. RESULTS: The study recruited thirty-eight experts (geriatricians, general practitioners, physiotherapists, nurses, and academics) from England and Wales. The majority of experts (32/38) believed that the treatment effect would depreciate over time and expressed greater uncertainty than that extrapolated from a trial-based outcome alone. The between-expert variation in predicted outcomes was relatively small. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that uncertainty in extrapolation can be informed using structured expert elicitation methods. Using structured elicitation to attach values to complex parameters requires key assumptions and simplifications to be considered.

Quantifying the Impact of Capacity Constraints in Economic Evaluations: An Application in Precision Medicine.

BACKGROUND: Examples of precision medicine are complex interventions featuring both testing and treatment components. Because of this complexity, there are often barriers to the introduction of such interventions. Few economic evaluations attempt to determine the impact of these barriers on the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. This study presents a case study economic evaluation that illustrates how the value of implementation methods may be used to quantify the impact of capacity constraints in a decision-analytic model. METHODS: A baseline decision-analytic model-based economic evaluation of ALK mutation testing was reproduced from a published technology appraisal. Three constraints (commissioning awareness, localization of testing, and pathology laboratory capacity) were identified using qualitative interviews, parameterized, and incorporated into the model. Value of implementation methods were used alongside incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to quantify the impact on the cost-effectiveness and net monetary benefit (NMB) of each capacity constraint and from the 3 constraints combined. RESULTS: Each of the 3 capacity constraints resulted in a loss of NMB ranging from £7773 (0.1% of the total) per year for localized testing to £4,907,893 (77%) for a lack of awareness about commissioning ALK testing. When combined, the constraints resulted in a loss of NMB of £5,289,414 (83%). The localization and limited pathology capacity constraints slightly increased the ICER, but the lack of commissioning awareness constraint did not change the ICER. CONCLUSIONS: Capacity constraints may have a significant impact on the NMB produced by examples of precision medicine. Value of implementation methods can be used to quantify the impact of such constraints by combining the impact of the constraints on the cost-effectiveness of the intervention with the impact on the number of patients receiving the intervention. HIGHLIGHTS: While capacity constraints may prevent the use of precision medicine in clinical practice, economic evaluations rarely account for the impact of such barriers.This study demonstrates how constraints can be identified using qualitative methods and subsequently incorporated into decision-analytic models using quantitative value of implementation methods.In addition, this article demonstrates how value of implementation methods can be used to account for the impact of capacity constraints on the costs and benefits of an intervention as well as the number of patients receiving the intervention.In the case study presented herein, a capacity constraint reducing patient access to an example of precision medicine caused the biggest loss of net monetary benefit.Health economists should consider moving beyond incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to measures of total net monetary benefit to fully capture the impact of implementing precision medicine.

Implementing Interventions with Varying Marginal Cost-Effectiveness: An Application in Precision Medicine.

Purpose. A range of barriers may constrain the effective implementation of strategies to deliver precision medicine. If the marginal costs and consequences of precision medicine vary at different levels of implementation, then such variation will have an impact on relative cost-effectiveness. This study aimed to illustrate the importance and quantify the impact of varying marginal costs and benefits on the value of implementation for a case study in precision medicine. Methods. An existing method to calculate the value of implementation was adapted to allow marginal costs and consequences of introducing precision medicine into practice to vary across differing levels of implementation. This illustrative analysis used a case study based on a published decision-analytic model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of a 70-gene recurrence score (MammaPrint) for breast cancer. The impact of allowing for varying costs and benefits for the value of the precision medicine and of implementation strategies was illustrated graphically and numerically in both static and dynamic forms. Results. The increasing returns to scale exhibited by introducing this specific example of precision medicine mean that a minimum level of implementation (51%) is required for using the 70-gene recurrence score to be cost-effective at a defined threshold of €20,000 per quality-adjusted life year. The observed variation in net monetary benefit implies that the value of implementation strategies was dependent on the initial and ending levels of implementation in addition to the magnitude of the increase in patients receiving the 70-gene recurrence score. In dynamic models, incremental losses caused by low implementation accrue over time unless implementation is improved. Conclusions. Poor implementation of approaches to deliver precision medicine, identified to be cost-effective using decision-analytic model-based cost-effectiveness analysis, can have a significant economic impact on health systems. Developing and evaluating the economic impact of strategies to improve the implementation of precision medicine will potentially realize the more cost-effective use of health care budgets.

Generating evidence to inform health technology assessment of treatments for SLE: a systematic review of decision-analytic model-based economic evaluations.

This study aimed to understand and appraise the approaches taken to handle the complexities of a multisystem disease in published decision-analytic model-based economic evaluations of treatments for SLE. A systematic review was conducted to identify all published model-based economic evaluations of treatments for SLE. Treatments that were considered for inclusion comprised antimalarial agents, immunosuppressive therapies, and biologics including rituximab and belimumab. Medline and Embase were searched electronically from inception until September 2018. Titles and abstracts were screened against the inclusion criteria by two reviewers; agreement between reviewers was calculated according to Cohen's κ. Predefined data extraction tables were used to extract the key features, structural assumptions and data sources of input parameters from each economic evaluation. The completeness of reporting for the methods of each economic evaluation was appraised according to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Six decision-analytic model-based economic evaluations were identified. The studies included azathioprine (n=4), mycophenolate mofetil (n=3), cyclophosphamide (n=2) and belimumab (n=1) as relevant comparator treatments; no economic evaluation estimated the relative cost-effectiveness of rituximab. Six items of the CHEERS statement were reported incompletely across the sample: target population, choice of comparators, measurement and valuation of preference-based outcomes, estimation of resource use and costs, choice of model, and the characterisation of heterogeneity. Complexity in the diagnosis, management and progression of disease can make decision-analytic model-based economic evaluations of treatments for SLE a challenge to undertake. The findings from this study can be used to improve the relevance of model-based economic evaluations in SLE and as an agenda for research to inform future health technology assessment and decision-making.

What are the benefits and harms of risk stratified screening as part of the NHS breast screening Programme? Study protocol for a multi-site non-randomised comparison of BC-predict versus usual screening (NCT04359420).

BACKGROUND: In principle, risk-stratification as a routine part of the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) should produce a better balance of benefits and harms. The main benefit is the offer of NICE-approved more frequent screening and/ or chemoprevention for women who are at increased risk, but are unaware of this. We have developed BC-Predict, to be offered to women when invited to NHSBSP which collects information on risk factors (self-reported information on family history and hormone-related factors via questionnaire; mammographic density; and in a sub-sample, Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms). BC-Predict produces risk feedback letters, inviting women at high risk (≥8% 10-year) or moderate risk (≥5 to < 8% 10-year) to have discussion of prevention and early detection options at Family History, Risk and Prevention Clinics. Despite the promise of systems such as BC-Predict, there are still too many uncertainties for a fully-powered definitive trial to be appropriate or ethical. The present research aims to identify these key uncertainties regarding the feasibility of integrating BC-Predict into the NHSBSP. Key objectives of the present research are to quantify important potential benefits and harms, and identify key drivers of the relative cost-effectiveness of embedding BC-Predict into NHSBSP. METHODS: A non-randomised fully counterbalanced study design will be used, to include approximately equal numbers of women offered NHSBSP (n = 18,700) and BC-Predict (n = 18,700) from selected screening sites (n = 7). In the initial 8-month time period, women eligible for NHSBSP will be offered BC-Predict in four screening sites. Three screening sites will offer women usual NHSBSP. In the following 8-months the study sites offering usual NHSBSP switch to BC-Predict and vice versa. Key potential benefits including uptake of risk consultations, chemoprevention and additional screening will be obtained for both groups. Key potential harms such as increased anxiety will be obtained via self-report questionnaires, with embedded qualitative process analysis. A decision-analytic model-based cost-effectiveness analysis will identify the key uncertainties underpinning the relative cost-effectiveness of embedding BC-Predict into NHSBSP. DISCUSSION: We will assess the feasibility of integrating BC-Predict into the NHSBSP, and identify the main uncertainties for a definitive evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of BC-Predict. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04359420).